Bible Commentary Archives - Page 3 of 5

Top Five Ephesians Commentaries

Introduction. Ephesians is a small book which makes a very large contribution to Pauline Theology. Yet one of the first problems one encounters with commentaries on Ephesians is a discussion of authorship. For many contemporary scholars, Ephesians is post-Pauline, perhaps written as a summary of Paul’s theology by a disciple of Paul. This unknown disciple may (or may not) have been authorized by Paul to write the letter. Commentaries on Ephesians often have lengthy, complicated surveys of the various options for authorship before settling on either the traditional view that Paul wrote the letter or some form of pseudonymity.

While I do not use Pauline authorship as a litmus-test for a good commentary on Ephesians, it is interesting that three of my choices support the traditional authorship, two do not. Hoehner observes that the scholarship is fairly evenly divided on the issue, although some prefer to remain agnostic on the issue. Others have changed their views over the years, in Lincoln’s case from Pauline authorship to non-Pauline.

Sometimes commentary series will include Ephesians with the other Prison Epistles, usually Colossians, in a single volume. The parallels between Ephesians and Colossians make this a convenient combination. This obviously reduces exegetical details, but also obscures the unique contribution of the letter to the Ephesians. I have given preference to single-volumes on Ephesians here, but there are a few combined commentaries which are also good. Brevity is not necessarily a bad thing in a commentary.

Harold Hoehner. Ephesians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2002). Hohner’s commentary on Ephesians is magisterial, demonstrating a mastery of the massive secondary literature on Ephesians. At 930 pages, this is the one of the most detailed modern commentaries on Ephesians available. His detailed examination of the Greek text is excellent, yet not overly technical. He steps through the text of the book phrase-by-phrase, with the Greek text provided without transliteration. He makes occasional text-critical observations in footnotes. The commentary has 130 pages of introduction, half of which concerns authorship (including 16 pages of bibliography on authorship alone!) This includes a chart with virtually every major commentary on Ephesians and New Testament introduction indicating whether they are for or against Pauline authorship (up to 2001). He supplements the commentary with a number of excursuses on technical details, particularly good are his comments on “Mystery” (pages 42–34) and “Slavery” (pages 800-4). Both include extensive bibliographies in the notes.

Ernest Best, Ephesians (ICC; T&T Clark, 2004). Best’s commentary on Ephesians is an excellent replacement to the classic ICC volume by T. K. Abbot (Ephesians and Colossians, available free at Google Books). Best is more or less agnostic on authorship, called the author AE (author of Ephesians). This exegetical comments on the Greek text are excellent, perhaps the best example of how a Greek text commentary ought to work. Best does not stop at reading the Greek, however, his comments draw out implications for the theology of the letter. T&T Clark published a Shorter Commentary on Ephesians which reduces the exegetical detail, this version of the commentary would be more helpful for the busy pastor.

Frank Thielman, Ephesians (BENTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2010). Thielman is well-known for his book Paul and the Law and a New Testament theology from Zondervan, but this is his first exegetical commentary. He deals with the problem of authorship in only a few pages, finding pseudonymity too unusual in the early Christian community to be a viable option. The commentary follows the user-friendly design of the Baker series, offering exegetical comments on the Greek text with transliteration. Compared to other volumes in the BENTC, Thielman’s commentary has more syntactical detail. I particularly appreciate his use of Greco-Roman sources, especially in the “Household Code” section of the letter.

A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1990). It is perhaps strange to say, but this commentary is the ‘classic” on this list. Lincoln thinks that Ephesians is a reinterpretation of Colossians (page lv), but also that Ephesians draws on other authentic letters of Paul (page lvi). The book was written by a follower of Paul who attempted to summarize Pauline theology for his generation. His assumptions are worked out in the commentary. In his comments on Eph 2:11-22, for example, he points out several parallels to Colossians and argues that Ephesians is an expansion or commentary on the earlier (Pauline) material. This kind of argument is found in the “Form / Structure / Setting” sections standard to the WBC series. The exegesis sections are structured by longer phrases and is not overly technical in matters of syntax. That sort of material is found in the notes on the translation of each pericope. What is most helpful is Lincoln’s frequent comments on the use of the LXX or Hebrew Bible as foundational for understanding the text.

Peter T. O’Brien, Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999). O’Brien has written major commentaries on each of the Prison Epistles for different series (NIGTC, WBC) and has contributed much to the study of Paul in recent years. His introduction to Ephesians is more brief than others on this list, but it is quite efficient. He defends a traditional view of Pauline authorship, pointing out that the problems created by pseudonymity are quite difficult, perhaps more so than the problems associated with Pauline authorship. The body of the commentary is based on the English text with Greek commentary relegated to the footnotes, as is the style of the Pillar series. This makes for a readable commentary which will be very helpful for the busy pastor or student preparing to preach the text of Ephesians.

Conclusion. Once again, there are a few good commentaries I was forced to omit to keep it to five. This give you (the reader) a chance to let me know what you have found useful in your preaching and teaching. I left off Clint Arnold’s commentary (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) simply because I have not used it yet (see Nijay Gupta’s comments here). This list is “light” in the New Perspective on Paul (is there anything reflecting that view on Ephesians?), and the oldest commentary I list is from 1990 – what “classic” should the student of Ephesians have on their shelf?

Index for the Top Five Commentary Series

Introduction to Series on Commentaries

On Using Commentaries

Matthew   Mark   Luke   John   Acts
Romans   1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians
Galatians Ephesians       Philippians   Colossians
1-2 Thessalonians   Pastoral Epistles Philemon
Hebrews   James 1 Peter 2 Peter & Jude
Letters of John Revelation

Conclusion: Last Thoughts on New Testament Commentaries

Top Five Galatians Commentaries

Introduction. Because of the situation behind this letter, Commentaries on Galatians are at the forefront of the discussion in the New Perspective on Paul. Like Romans, the main theological context of Galatians is salvation by grace through faith in Jesus. But what “justified by faith” means is a central point in the New Perspective discussion (see here on the pistis christou issue). A major implication of understanding Judaism in the Second Temple Period better is that the so-Called Judaizers may not be the proto-Pelagians they are often made out to be.

This One Did Not Make the List

Another impact the New Perspective has made on the study of Galatians is the proper understanding of the phrase “works of the Law.” Until recently, this phrase was taken to mean “The Law,” or complete Torah observance. In the light of the publication of 4QMMT and the work of Dunn and Wright, many now take the phrase to mean “boundary markers” which set Judaism apart from other worldviews. These boundary markers are circumcision, food laws, Sabbath observance and monotheism.

An additional complication is placing the letter into a chronology of Paul and the book of Acts. One problem is the relationship of Paul’s own testimony of his visits to Jerusalem and Luke’s reporting in Acts. Is the meeting Paul describes in Galatians 2 the same meeting Luke describes in Acts 15? Where does the so-called Antioch Incident fit into the chronology of Acts? A commentary usually will begin with a lengthy (and sometimes dry) discussion of the South vs. North Galatia theories. While this may seem to the layman to be a rather obscure point, it really is important with respect to the chronology of Paul’s mission, and will effect how the scholar approaches the opponent in Galatia.

Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1990). The introduction is excellent on the various suggestions for understanding the Judaizers, perhaps this essay should be read to orient one’s thinking. Like all commentaries in the WBC, the exegetical sections are based onthe Greek text without any transliteration, all citations are in-text. Longenecker includes several excellent excursuses, “Antioch on the Orontes,” “Abraham’s Faith and Faithfulness in Jewish Writings and in Paul,” and “The Hagar-Sarah Story in Jewish Writings and in Paul” are all particularly good. The last is rich with Jewish sources and very helpful for understanding that difficult passage.

Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998). This commentary is almost worth the price for the introduction alone. (It happens that I agree with much of what he says, so that may color my perceptions just a bit!) I find Witherington’s view of the agitators to be well-written and clear, informed by a dialogue with James Dunn yet not he is not simply parroting “new perspective” ideas. However, the emphasis on Paul’s rhetorical style is less helpful (to me), although it seems as though Witherington makes good use of the Greco-Roman rhetorical styles for interpreting the text. A real highlight in this commentary (and others in the Socio-Rhetorical series) is the section entitled “Bridging the Horizons.” Here Witherington attempts to apply his exegesis of Galatians to contemporary theological issues – how does tihs book really apply to the church today?

Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988). This commentary replaces the venerable NICNT by Herman Ridderbos (1953). That volume was written from a thoroughly traditional perspective, Fung’s approach is biblical-theological, following his teacher, F. F. Bruce. His introduction to the book is excellent, dating the book before Acts 15, written to southern Galatia. He deals with major arguments for and against this view, creating an efficient and readable argument. Like most of the NICNT series, Greek is relegated to footnotes, permitting the layman or busy pastor to use the commentary without too much difficulty. In fact, some of his footnotes interact with other views in such detail it is hard to imagine why the material was placed there instead of the main text! I particularly enjoy his “additional comments,” brief excursuses on topics that go a bit beyond the text. I find these brief yet extremely helpful. Fung has written a major Galatians commentary in Chinese, something which I see as extremely promising.

Timothy George, Galatians (NAC; Nashville: Broandman & Holman, 1994). This commentary is a bit different than others in the NAC series in that George is a professor of Theology and Church History. As such, his commentary is a “work of theological exposition” (p. 13). This does not mean that there is no exegesis in the commentary. On the contrary, George’s theological reflections are solidly based on the text of Galatians. Even so, the commentary is rich with observations from classic Reformation and Puritan writers.

Mark Nanos, The Galatians Debate (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002). Similar to The Romans Debate edited by K. P. Donfried, Nanos’s collection of essays are drawn from a wide variety of journals and collections. Unlike that previous volume, these articles are collected thematically, illustrating various approaches to Galatians: Rhetorical, Epistolary, Autobiographical, and Socio-Historical. Eight essays are devoted to the “Galatian Situation.” I personally have found the four essays under the heading of Socio-Historical approaches to be the most helpful for my own research in the book of Galatians, especially Dunn’s classic essay on the Incident at Antioch (which was revised for Beginning at Jerusalem) and Nanos’s own article on Eating with the Gentiles.

Conclusion. There are a few books I left off this list to keep it to five. (What! No F. F. Bruce?! Where’s J. Louis Martyn ?) I would have liked to include Martinus C. de Boer’s recent commentary from Westminster/John Knox, but I have only recently purchased a copy and have yet to really read enough to make comments. (James Dunn reviewed the book for RBL). Doug Moo has a commentary coming out in the BECNT series which should be good. I know a few classics are missing, but that is why I stuck to five – this give you (the reader) a chance to let me know what you have found useful in your preaching and teaching.

Index for the Top Five Commentary Series

Introduction to Series on Commentaries

On Using Commentaries

Conclusion: Last Thoughts on New Testament Commentaries

Top Five 2 Corinthians Commentaries

Introduction. Commentaries on Second Corinthians necessarily must deal with the relationship of the letter to First Corinthians, both in terms of the chronology implied by the letter and the somewhat difficult problem of sources. It is possible, for example, to read the books as containing two or three different letters, Bornkamm saw as many as eight smaller letters in the book! The reasons for this are obvious to the reader of the book, it has a somewhat choppy outline and there are several abrupt changes. If there are interpolations in the book commentators then must ask if came from Paul or another early Christian writer. Paul does mention a “severe letter” and there are several implied visits to Corinth (by Paul, Titus or others). Commentaries can be overly distracted by these issues and do not manage to get to the text of 2 Corinthians.

Another problem all 2 Corinthians commentaries must deal with is the opponents implied by the letter. Who are the “super-apostles” described in chapter 11? Are these the Twelve? Does Paul have in mind non-Christian teachers who are claiming apostolic authority? If so, how are they related to Jerusalem and / or the Judaizers mentioned in Galatians?

Murray Harris, 2 Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005). Harris’s commentary is another excellent contribution in the New International Greek Text series by an expert on the second letter to the Corinthians. He also contributed the commentary on 2 Corinthians for the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1976). He has a lengthy introduction dealing with the problem of the sources, concluding that “here are fewer difficulties with the hypothesis of the letter’s integrity” than with any of the suggested theories he surveys (p. 51). The introduction also deals at length with the “painful visit” and Paul’s travel plans. Harris also has a lengthy piece on the opponents of Paul in the letter, surveying all the major suggestions and offer what is (to me) a judicious understanding. He states in summary, “although claiming to be Christian, were in reality ‘Judaizers’” (p. 85). I would recommend this 125 page introduction to anyone wishing to study either of the Corinthian letters. The body of the commentary is a detailed exegesis of the Greek text of the letter, treating lexical and syntactical details. I particularly appreciate his tendency to lay out three or four options before setting on his own. Eerdmans published Harris’s “Expanded Paraphrase” of 2 Corinthians, which is simply the text of the letter.

Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1986). This is something of a classic commentary on the letter and one of the better WBC volumes. Word commentaries excel in giving bibliographies at the beginning of sections, Martin’s commentary provides complete bibliographies on exegetical problems (literature on composition issues other than commentaries, for example, or the section on Paul’s vision in 12:1-10). These are complete through the early 1980s and include German and French articles as well as English. The actual commentary follows the format of the series, giving a bibliography for the section followed by textual notes, form/structure, and then the actual commentary. Martin’s brief “explanations” after the commentary draw out implications of the text for a larger Pauline theology.

Colin Kruse, 2 Corinthians (Tyndale, Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1987). I have not included any from the Tyndale series yet, but this slender volume by Kruse is worth reading. Kruse replaced the commentary by R.V. G. Tasker in the Tyndale series (1963), both are handy although exceptionally short compared to Harris. Kruse does a nice job dealing with the composition questions in just a few pages. His comments are on the English text although they reflect the Greek as much as possible. This is a excellent choice for the busy pastor who wants a brief overview of the main problems of a text for preparing a sermon.

David Garland, 2 Corinthians (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999). Garland’s introduction to the letter argues for the unity of 2 Corinthians, although the details of that argument is the commentary itself. He finds a great deal more unity in the letter, and shows that the letter is better understood as we have it in the canonical form. The body of the commentary deals with the Greek via the English text (all Greek is transliterated). He does an exceptional job comparing Paul’s rhetorical style with Greco-Roman orators. Garland’s commentary is in dialogue with major commentaries, but the text is readable and useful for pastor or layman.

Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984). This is the only commentary on my list that takes a multiple source seriously, suggesting five separate letters as sources for the compilation of 2 Corinthians, although two of his five sources are now lost, a first letter to Corinth prior to the canonical book and the “tearful letter” (letter C). Chapters 1-9 and 10-13 are two separate letters. Furnish also suggests Galatians and chapters 10-13 are composed and sent about the same time, helping to show that the opponents in 10-13 are the Judaizers of Galatians. But these matters should not distract from the value of the commentary, some of Furnish’s “expanded comments” are excellent and shed a great deal of light on the text. Like all Anchor volumes, Greek appears only in transliteration in a “notes” section.

Conclusion. I was going to only include four commentaries in this list, possibly because I included two by Harris and mentioned both Tyndale commentaries in passing, but thought better of breaking my own rules. Second Corinthians is perhaps the one Pauline book where I have spent the least time. I usually deal with “The Corinthian Correspondence ” rather than the second book by itself.

What ought I be reading on this very important book? What commentaries need to be added to this list?

Index for the Top Five Commentary Series

Introduction to Series on Commentaries

On Using Commentaries

Conclusion: Last Thoughts on New Testament Commentaries

Top Five 1 Corinthians Commentaries

Introduction. Commentaries on Corinthians are necessarily different than Romans commentaries because the letters to the Corinthians deal with specific social and ethical problems in Paul’s churches. Because of this there is less rumination on theological issues than the social background which resulted in problems reflected in the letters. In order to really get at the heart of these letters, there is a need to understand the problems of Christianity in a Greco-Roman context. For this reason, I favor commentaries on Corinthians which attempt to explain the cultural and social factors behind the ethical and moral problems in the books.

Another complication for studying the Corinthian letters is the relationship of Acts to the letters, as well as the implication of at least four letters from Paul and several visits. Chronological issues can be distracting (and to some readers, superfluous), but it is important that a commentary sort out those problems so that the text can be read properly.

Anthony C. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000). Like most of the NIGTC series, Thiselton’s commentary is magisterial. At over 1400 pages, the commentary contains highly detailed exegesis and theological interest. Thiselton also includes what he calls a “posthistory reception” of the text (Wirkungsgeschichte). Here he draws on the apostolic fathers, patristic, medieval, Reformation, and modern eras and briefly summarizes how each age has read the text of 1 Corinthians. These are interesting, although they go beyond what is typically included in a commentary (although Bruner does this in his Matthew and John commentaries). Eerdmans did publish another version of this commentary, A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary. For most pastors, the shorter commentary will be sufficient.

Gordon Fee, 1 Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996). Fee’s commentary replaced the NICNT volume on 1 Corinthians by F. W. Grosheide (1953). If I recall correctly, this was the first of the NICNT replacements, and is a considerable “upgrade” to the older commentary; mine is unfortunately in the older format (short and fat), making it very difficult to read! Fee’s commentary is a good example of why long series update their volumes from time to time. Grosheide was a fine commentary, but much has been said on 1 Corinthians since then, especially with respect to the impact of cultural and sociological studies. The text of the commentary is focused on the English text, but the footnotes contain the details of Fee’s Greek exegesis for those interested. There are some oddities in Fee’s observations, especially his contention that the difficult command in 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation into the text.

David Garland, 1 Corinthians (BENTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2005). Garland’s commentary begins by setting the letter in the context of Roman Corinth. This is a brief but very readable introduction to the social / cultural issues lurking in the background of the letters. The format of the commentary follows the pattern of others in the series, Greek is include in the commentary but always transliterated, textual notes are placed the “additional notes.” Garland’s commentary seems more in tune with the Hebrew Bible and other Second Temple Period literature than Greek and Roman sources, providing a helpful correction to other commentaries in this list.

Ben Witherington, III, Conflict and Community in Corinth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995). Like Witherington’s other commentaries in this Socio-Rhetorical series, there is a wealth of background material here which will enhance one’s reading of 1 and 2 Corinthians. In this series I particularly appreciate the excursuses, labeled “A Closer Look At.” His five pages on glossolia in Corinth are excellent, likewise his section on Rules for Meals. The introduction to the books isone of the best I have read. Since these books are letters, Witherington attempts to develop Paul’s rhetoric, employing technical language of the Greco-Roman orator. This is not overly burdensome but may confuse readers not familiar with terms like Probatio.

Bruce Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001). This is not exactly a commentary, but it is one of the most helpful books I have ever read on the social and political situation of Corinth in the middle of the first century. Winter is a historian who asks the simple question, what happened in the church at Corinth after Paul’s 18 months there? His answer is that the members of the church were swayed by the social and ethical world of Roman Corinth, as well as enormous political pressures on members of the congregation to participate in civic duties. There is a wealth of background material in this book which everyone trying to deal with the problems of the Corinthian church must take into account.

Conclusion. Those are my five, and I know I have left some important ones out. Let me know 1 Corinthians commentaries you have used, what else is helpful for studying these important books?

Index for the Top Five Commentary Series

Introduction to Series on Commentaries

On Using Commentaries

Conclusion: Last Thoughts on New Testament Commentaries

Top Five Romans Commentaries

Introduction. Romans commentaries are usually as concerned with Pauline Theology as the exegesis of the text. This is natural since Romans must be the center of any attempt to systematize Pauline Theology. As I have observed in a few previous posts, it is difficult to create any sort of systematic theology (especially Soteriology) without standing on the foundation of Paul. Roman commentaries, therefore, must often wade into the murky waters of systematic theology in ways that Gospel commentaries usually do not.

Another factor to consider is the New Perspective on Paul. Since the mid-1970s, there has been a move away from the more traditional of Paul found in Augustine and Luther (and represented by traditional Reformed commentaries on the book of Romans). E. P. Sanders sought to read Paul as a representative of Second Temple Period Judaism rather than through the lens of reformed systematic theology. His observations have been challenged, but the influence of this “new perspective” casts a shadow on every commentary written on Romans written in the last 25 years. I have included Dunn (representing the New Perspective) and Cranfield and Schreiner (representing the Traditional View).

C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans (ICC; 2 vol. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975). Cranfield replaced the venerable Sanday and Headlam volume on Romans in the ICC series (available for free via Google Books). Since that volume appeared in 1904, much has happened in Pauline studies! Cranfield’s commentary is a masterpiece of exegesis, covering the nuances of the Greek text of Romans with detailed syntactical comments. Cranfield excels in bringing the syntax to bear on theology. For example, commenting on Romans 5:12, he gives six options for understanding the relative clause “in whom all sinned.” He shows why some ought to be dismissed on exegetical grounds, but others are dismissed for theological reasons (one is too Pelagian, for example!)

Douglas J. Moo, Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996). Moo’s commentary on Romans is massive, just over 1000 pages. Remarkably, the introduction is a mere 35 pages! Like many of the newer contributions to the NICNT series, this commentary on Romans engages the Greek text, making exegetical observations primarily in the footnotes. I find that too many of these notes are simply the Greek word. The notes would be far fewer if they were allowed in the main text. Moo has a handful of favorite dialogue partners, often playing one off of another; occasionally, a footnote is simply the name of the scholar who suggests a certain reading. Moo includes systematic theology as a part of the discussion on a few occasions, especially in places where theology is affected by an exegetical point in the text (imputation of sin in Rom 5:12, for example).

J. D. G. Dunn, Romans (WBC; 2 vol.; Nashville: Word, 1988). One would think that Dunn’s commentary on Romans would be the flagship of the new perspective on Paul, and to a large extent, it is just that. Dunn says in his introduction that he intentionally writes his commentary to read Paul in the context of first-century Judaism, specifically as described by Sanders. His commitment to this is seen from the very first line of the introduction, “Paul was a Jew. He was born a Jew and brought up a Jew. He never ceased being a Jew.” The Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period appears more often in this commentary than any other surveyed here. Dunn deals with the Greek text’s details in the exegetical section of the commentary. Still, in his explanations, he begins to create a Theology of Paul (his Pauline Theology is the fruit of his labor in the text of Romans).

Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998). Like most Baker Exegetical commentaries, Schreiner’s commentary is aimed at the busy pastor and layman. He states in his preface that he intends the commentary to be “meaty” but not so dense that reading distracts from Paul’s own words. This commentary is decidedly traditional regarding “new perspective” issues. Schreiner in fact, dedicates the book to John Piper. But this does not mean that the commentary is a parroting of Calvin or Reformed theology. Schreiner carefully weighs the sometimes dense syntax to develop Paul’s thought. In the section on Romans 5:12 (“in whom all sinned”), he develops a number of views on the difficult phrase yet settles on a more or less reformed view of the text (original sin, imputation).

K. P. Donfried, The Romans Debate (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1977, revised 1991). Including this book instead of another commentary might be a criminal misuse of my prerogative as the list-maker. I am including this non-commentary in a list of key commentaries because the books listed above are noticeably light in introductory matters. Given the importance of the text of Romans, it is understandable that a commentary simply moves through the text to tease out Paul’s meaning. But each book in this list comes from a theological perspective, and the writers make many assumptions about what Paul says before approaching the text. The Romans Debate collects important articles and book sections on the problems one faces trying to build a “theology of Paul.” There are some real classics in this collection. It is well worth the book’s price to gather these essays into one place.

Conclusion. Where’s Wright? I did not include Wright’s commentary on Romans since it is embedded in the New Interpreter’s Bible, and I have not read it! I think that Abingdon needs to publish the Romans commentary separately. I guess that it would sell much better than individual volumes of the larger NIB.

Worse – D. Martin Lloyd-Jones is not on the list. I can already hear people complaining – so tell me, what commentaries have you found useful (and why)? Who has been (criminally) omitted from this list? What classic commentary on Romans should be read by everyone who wants to understand Paul’s thoughts?